BACKGROUND: The search for an expander that can achieve tissue expansion, with minimum tissue damage, more distensible and thinner flaps, and fewer clinical side effects during the expansion process, has led to the testing of expanders with different surfaces textures (e.g., smooth vs. textured). The individual advantages of smooth and rough expanders are currently not known. This question has motivated research on capsules to determine which type of expander is best. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, prospective study with no exclusion criteria on 38 patients already undergoing tissue expansion at Plastic Surgery Department at the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (University Hospital of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro). At the end of the expansion process, samples were collected from the edge, base, and dome of capsules formed around 28 smooth and 14 textured expanders. Differences in capsule wall thickness and histology were examined. RESULTS: There was no difference in the clinical appearance, expansion time, or insertion planes between the two types of expanders. Additionally, no significant differences in histological characteristics were observed between the types of expander surfaces. In statistical analyses, no correlation between capsule wall thickness and expansion time or between the maximum and minimum wall thickness were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, we conclude that the two types of tissue expander surfaces are equivalent.
Tissue expansion; Tissue expansion; Tissue expansion devices
